About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
fitsity still. there's no legislative language. it looks like what could be a pretty big tax increase. the spending cuts i think are highly uncertain. it instructs the various committees of the senate and the house to come up with these spending cuts. we have no assurance that they will do that. we have no idea how they'll do that. then we asked the senate to vote on that. all of which suggests to me there are a number of ways in which this could fall apart. i give these guys all the credit in the world for really struggling and trying to make some progress on a tough issue. there's no assurance that it results in an outcome. if we can't agree on spending cuts now, why should we suppose at the end of this process which after all has been available to us for two years the senate won't even pass a budget, why we think that this will result in real spending cuts is not clear to me. >> the other dynamic here is the mcconnell-reid proposal. that is going to get to the floor at some point. now the idea of being that the gang of six proposal is too late to be scored by cbo to really be put i
ahead with a big deal maybe triggered in or staged later? >> i heard what the president said. i don't think business itself is bothered by the debt ceiling deal or no deal. i think what they may be bothered by is the uncertainty surrounding future tax regime that's going to be required to deal with these deficits. however, factoring into the negotiations what maybe somewhat helpful to the president in a slew of numbers that by and large are totally unhelpful is we're seeing the near term effects of cutting back in government spending. it cost jobs. not just in the government sector, but also in knock on private sector jobs as well. >> steve liesman with all the numbers and what that mean. thank you so much. good to see you, steve. republicans using the bad jobs report to scuttle any new taxes in a budget deal. joining me now virginia democratic senator mark warner a key member of the so-called gang of slight, slightly shrunk to five. still hoping senators working for months on ways to reduce the deficit. your quick reaction to the jobs report first and how it will effect the negotia
toward a vote next week. the president says he still wants a big deal. but for the first time he's opening the door on senator mitch mcconnell's fall back plan which is gaining momentum on capitol hill. chuck todd was in the briefing room for the news conference. host of "the daily rundown" and luke russert. there was a movement from the president at least towards considering the mcconnell backup plan. what are the chances he still might get what he really wants which is a bigger deal? >> to me -- in a way put together to try to get through this. what you felt was the press conference was about was trying to frame the post game debate, if you will. you heard this from the speaker. suddenly they're back to distancing themselves from the debt ceiling. let's get to the debt ceiling part. we're running out of time on that. maybe there's still time to negotiate this grand bargain. that's sort of what i heard out of this. the president will sign anything that gets to his desk that seems to get through both houses of congress at this point. and then after that, maybe there's a conversat
to comment until you see some specifics. i think that the bottom line is in terms of an overall deal, the big holdup here is the fact that republicans have kept revenues off the table completely, even eric cantor yesterday, people said well, it's a great thing he says maybe he'll do a few of these egregious loopholes in the law, corporate jets and yachts and stuff like this, but even there, he had another loophole put in the law and none of the money that would be -- that comes from closing these loopholes would be used to reduce the deficit. so it's one step forward, two steps back. if republicans are willing to entertain serious revenues, there's a real chance for a big deal. if they're not, there's no chance for a big deal and i can tell you this. democrats are not going to go for something that says we have all these cuts that we'll put in the budget now and maybe we'll get revenues down the road, the ways and means committee or the finance committee will decide those down the road. leader reid issued a statement that i think sums up our view, that there has to be balance between cuts and
a picture for us about how a newspaper like news of the world goes about reporting on such a big story? what the level of the editor, deputy editor, senior reporters would be in putting together and overseeing the story? >> i think any big story. forrer the purpose of process most stories start out with the reporter. and that reporter may be being asked by the news editor to go and investigate a story or they may have brought information about a story from their own contacts to the news editor. it is at that stage in a newspaper where the reporter and news editor discuss the voracity of the information, go out and check the allegations, and come back with a more considered view. you can imagine that every newspaper gets a lot of information to the news desk and only percentage very small percentage makes it actually to publication. there are many layers from reporter to assistant news editor to news editor. finally this story will go to the back bench which will be the people that will oversee the stopping of that story and the subwill often talk to the reporter directly with questions and a
, it made taxpayer funded bailouts illegal. so tax payers don't have to foot the bill if a big bank goes under. second, it said to wall street firms, you can't take the same kind of reckless risks that led to the crisis. and third, it put in place the stronger -- the strongest consumer protections in history. and make sure that these protections work so ordinary people were dealt with fairly so they could make informed decisions about their finances. we didn't just change the law. we changed the way the government did business. for years the job of protecting consumers was divided up in a lot of different agencies. so if you had a problem with the mortgage lender you called one place. if you had a problem with a credit card company, you called somebody else. it meant there were a lot of people who were, but that meant nobody was responsible. and we changed that. we cut the bureaucracy and put one consumer watchdog in charge with just one job. looking out for regular people in the financial system. this is an idea that i got from elizabeth warren who i first met years ago. back then this
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)